Post by Catilina on Aug 16, 2017 18:38:25 GMT

About Nathaniel: I found him very honest and fair. My Cousland felt respect toward him when spoke with him in the cell. And despite his family, he felt similarities with him: when his family massacred by Howe-mobs, he became an outlaw, just as Nathaniel due of his father sin.

You mean social outcast, not outlaw. He got tossed into jail for stealing and punching Wardens, not because of who his father was. It's difficult to respect someone who without gaining additional information on the situation passes severest judgement over you enough to wish you dead. Check your facts first before sneaking in to murder someone even if Nath changed his mind half way. Howe massacred almost the entire family and the first thing that comes out of his son's mouth is a wish to finish where his father left off. He promises to kill the Warden if you ask what if you let him go. The only reason my Warden didn't execute him was because he had spared Loghain too. It was very tempting to execute Nath during my first play through. Of course, after having him in the party I've had no such thoughts in the following games. Which doesn't mean I don't find a bit over the top the rosy glasses scenario how the game pushes Howes and Couslands to be friends again. He saves Warden's brother later on and gets a part of his estate back, and both families visit each for tea and biscuits each evening. It's not like both families haven't wiped out entirely each other's previous generation. But... then again.. at least someone gets a happy and unambiguous ending.

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 18:49:43 GMT

You mean social outcast, not outlaw. He got tossed into jail for stealing and punching Wardens, not because of who his father was. It's difficult to respect someone who without gaining additional information on the situation passes severest judgement over you enough to wish you dead. Check your facts first before sneaking in to murder someone even if Nath changed his mind half way. Howe massacred almost the entire family and the first thing that comes out of his son's mouth is a wish to finish where his father left off. He promises to kill the Warden if you ask what if you let him go. The only reason my Warden didn't execute him was because he had spared Loghain too. It was very tempting to execute Nath during my first play through. Of course, after having him in the party I've had no such thoughts in the following games. Which doesn't mean I don't find a bit over the top the rosy glasses scenario how the game pushes Howes and Couslands to be friends again. He saves Warden's brother later on and gets a part of his estate back, and both families visit each for tea and biscuits each evening. It's not like both families haven't wiped out entirely each other's previous generation. But... then again.. at least someone gets a happy and unambiguous ending.

That's true of my Cousland as well, thus saving Nath seemed fair. In the eyes of society becoming a Warden is a great honour. Because they want new recruits - this is a myth the Wardens are working on preserving in fact. Mhirin is eager to dedicate her life to it and even Cailan seemed like he wished to be a Warden. (On aside note: I find it strange though that although the Warden's viewed him as number one ally, Duncan still never shared any information with the King. There are people after all who know warden secrets without being wardens. ;/)

In any case what if Nath actually hadn't changed his mind and his plan had succeeded? At the very least he would have assassinated Warden-Commander and screwed the Wardens again worse than AD while at it since the Wardens once again face annihilation in Ferelden. Not to mention as a human noble it is possible you are the Queen/King of Ferelden. Nice ninja move murdering a royal person after a huge period of instability while the country is in dire need of a central power. All because he couldn't check his facts before sharpening the knives.

Nath crawls out of the bog. Doesn't know nothing about anything. His first thought is 'I'll just murder top ranking Warden and possible Queen/King of Ferelden.' Yep, no respect points for him at that stage in the game. That is not to say I do not respect him later. But, first meeting did make me consider the execution.

Post by MarilynRobert on Aug 16, 2017 19:00:04 GMT

My team is defined by which class I'm playing. I do prefer to use Anders over Vellana and Nathaniel is my DD choice.

It would have been nice to let Mhairi to live too for a choice of tank, but I find the Awakening Warden joining odds are high enough as it is. Except for her everyone else survives, which is so different from our Warden ceremony where only 1/3 lived.

I should probably stick this opinion into unpopular views thread, but I've never grown warm feelings for Nathaniel. I do not dislike him as he is one of a few decent men to join, however, my first run through was human noble. When they meet, Nathaniel is a complete douche to my Warden and completely undeserved too as I played that one as honourable as a Warden could be. My resentment for Howe factored into it. I think Nath is a good warden and very useful dps/lockpick combo in one, but I've never considered him to be my best buddy. I maintain a neutral/cool disposition towards him.

Also, Nath needs to can it and not lie on my behalf during battles by yelling 'Surrender and we'll be merciful.' I most certainly don't want darkspawn to surrender and don't intend to be merciful. I wish to rain pain and destruction upon them and then to steal their loot. ];P

That's true of my Cousland as well, thus saving Nath seemed fair. In the eyes of society becoming a Warden is a great honour. Mhirin is eager to dedicate her life to it and even Cailan seemed like he wished to be a Warden. (On aside note: I find it strange though that although the Warden's viewed him as number one ally, Duncan still never shared any information with the King. There are people after all who know warden secrets without being wardens. ;/)

In any case what if Nath actually hadn't changed his mind and his plan had succeeded? At the very least he would have assassinated Warden-Commander and screwed the Wardens again worse than AD while at it since the Wardens once again face annihilation in Ferelden. Not to mention as a human noble it is possible you are the Queen/King of Ferelden. Nice ninja move murdering a royal person after a huge period of instability while the country is in dire need of a central power. All because he couldn't check his facts before sharpening the knives.

It's a logical reason, just as killing Zevran.Accepting Zevran's offer, especially sleep with him, that was riskier. And Nate seems too honest to assassinating him. It could be foolish, but somehow he was reliable.As Queen/Prince consort even risky to join to every single battle, don't forget. One more or less risk, no matter, I suppose.

Perhaps as an outsider, to be Warden seems a great honor, but as a Warden isn't that simple. There are good and bad parts of the Warden existence. Why so big secret the joining ritual for example? So: no. This is not a reward.

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 19:52:25 GMT

That's true of my Cousland as well, thus saving Nath seemed fair. In the eyes of society becoming a Warden is a great honour. Mhirin is eager to dedicate her life to it and even Cailan seemed like he wished to be a Warden. (On aside note: I find it strange though that although the Warden's viewed him as number one ally, Duncan still never shared any information with the King. There are people after all who know warden secrets without being wardens. ;/)

In any case what if Nath actually hadn't changed his mind and his plan had succeeded? At the very least he would have assassinated Warden-Commander and screwed the Wardens again worse than AD while at it since the Wardens once again face annihilation in Ferelden. Not to mention as a human noble it is possible you are the Queen/King of Ferelden. Nice ninja move murdering a royal person after a huge period of instability while the country is in dire need of a central power. All because he couldn't check his facts before sharpening the knives.

It's a logical reason, just as killing Zevran.Accepting Zevran's offer, especially sleep with him, that was riskier. And Nate seems too honest to assassinating him. It could be foolish, but somehow he was reliable.As Queen/Prince consort even risky to join to every single battle, don't forget. One more or less risk, no matter, I suppose.

Perhaps as an outsider, to be Warden seems a great honor, but as a Warden isn't that simple. There are good and bad parts of the Warden existence. Why so big secret the joining ritual for example? So: no. This is not a reward.

First of all, prior to the final decision my Warden also wavered between sparing or killing Zevran before going through many conversation options and letting him explain his motivations (where he was making far better arguments in favour of living than Nath who wanted NO compromise with the Warden). And well you're a nobody when Zevran wants to kill you and it's not personal, while with Nath he wishes to murder you while he's misinformed and refusing to listen when presented with new information (though he certainly has a right not to trust our Warden). To be fair Nath sounds a lot more reasonable depending on dialogue you choose with him. He makes a valid argument that the rest of the family should not suffer for something his father did and sounds less criminal if you talk differently to him than when he's promising to kill you and your dog if you let him out.

I don't think personal safety was ever the motivation over letting someone live or die for my Warden. It was about judging whether the person in front of him is deserving of a chance to redeem themselves or not. At this point Nath is making an extremely poor case for himself because he's not sorry and prefers to die than to become a Warden. My Warden kills Branka and kills that mage at Soldier's Peak because they're not sorry for what they've done and it's safe to assume they'll continue their criminal activity in the future.

Er... I'm not sure what connection you're making here in the decision of letting Nath live or die - what does it being honour/not honour have to do with it? Are you saying that Nath gains your sympathy. Therefore as - not reward - your Warden is inclined to punish him by making him a Warden?

In any case, I did not clap my hands, go hurray and immediately accept Zevran or Nath into my party. These two decisions required a lot of consideration and sparing Nath was harder than sparing Zevran.

Post by Catilina on Aug 16, 2017 20:22:43 GMT

It's a logical reason, just as killing Zevran.Accepting Zevran's offer, especially sleep with him, that was riskier. And Nate seems too honest to assassinating him. It could be foolish, but somehow he was reliable.As Queen/Prince consort even risky to join to every single battle, don't forget. One more or less risk, no matter, I suppose.

Perhaps as an outsider, to be Warden seems a great honor, but as a Warden isn't that simple. There are good and bad parts of the Warden existence. Why so big secret the joining ritual for example? So: no. This is not a reward.

Well you're a nobody when Zevran wants to kill you and it's not personal, while with Nath he wishes to murder you while he's misinformed. To be fair, however, Nath sounds a lot more reasonable depending on dialogue you choose with him. He makes a valid argument that the rest of the family should not suffer for something his father did and sounds less criminal if you talk differently to him than when he's promising to kill you and your dog if you let him out.

I don't think personal safety was ever the motivation over letting someone live or die for my Warden. It was about judging whether the person in front of him is deserving of a chance to redeem themselves or not. At the point Nath is making an extremely poor case for himself because he's not sorry. My Wardens kills Branka and kills that mage guy at soldier's peak because they're not sorry for what they've done and it's safe to assume they'll continue their criminal activity in the future.

Er... I'm not sure what connection you're making here in the decision of letting Nath live or die - what does it it being honour/not honour have to do with it?

The Warden not really was a nobody when Zevran wants to kill him/her. The Warden was important enough for Loghain, the regent of Ferelden, to hire an expensive assassin to kill him/her. And s/he knew, that at the moment s/he and Alistair who able to gather an army against the Blight. More important than a simple Queen/Prince consort.

Nathaniel has a reason to try killing the Warden, he didn't know, what his Father did. If Warden doesn't interest about his motivation, and didn't tell him, what happened, I suppose, he insists his plan. (I don't played Awakening long time ago, I just remembered, that I never found him hostile, only at the first moments.)

Why matter, that to be Warden isn't a reward? Because this can be a penalty too... depending on the viewpoint.

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 20:41:26 GMT

The Warden not really was a nobody when Zevran wants to kill him/her. The Warden was important enough for Loghain, the regent of Ferelden, to hire an expensive assassin to kill him/her. And s/he knew, that at the moment s/he and Alistair who able to gather an army against the Blight. More important than a simple Queen/Prince consort.

Nathaniel has a reason to try killing the Warden, he didn't know, what his Father did. If Warden doesn't interest about his motivation, and didn't tell him, what happened, I suppose, he insists his plan. (I don't played Awakening long time ago, I just remembered, that I never found him hostile, only at the first moments.)

Why matter, that to be Warden isn't a reward? Because this can be a penalty too... depending on the viewpoint.

1. Like I said earlier personal safety was never a big consideration for my warden in making a decision to spare Nath or not. It was about whether the person can be redeemed or not.

+ However I have not fully separated my general observations and 'what if' scenario with the point of view of the first Warden I've been playing.

2. Well you didn't find Nath hostile because you have chosen a different conversation tree with him. Like I pointed out earlier his responses vary and can create a different impression. My conversation with him narrowed down to him wanting zero compromise with the Warden and still not being beyond consideration of going back to the murdering plan.

3. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. What does it have to do with the argument in favour of or against executing Nathaniel? Are you saying that while your Warden did not wish to execute him - he still wanted to punish Nathaniel because your Warden considers being a Warden a punishment?

Whether being a Warden is a reward or punishment is a separate discussion that has nothing to do with Nath personally. Nor have I stated my personal opinion whether it is or it isn't. I pointed out how Ferelden society mostly perceives it.

Post by Catilina on Aug 16, 2017 21:15:44 GMT

The Warden not really was a nobody when Zevran wants to kill him/her. The Warden was important enough for Loghain, the regent of Ferelden, to hire an expensive assassin to kill him/her. And s/he knew, that at the moment s/he and Alistair who able to gather an army against the Blight. More important than a simple Queen/Prince consort.

Nathaniel has a reason to try killing the Warden, he didn't know, what his Father did. If Warden doesn't interest about his motivation, and didn't tell him, what happened, I suppose, he insists his plan. (I don't played Awakening long time ago, I just remembered, that I never found him hostile, only at the first moments.)

Why matter, that to be Warden isn't a reward? Because this can be a penalty too... depending on the viewpoint.

1. Like I said earlier personal safety was never a big consideration for my warden in making a decision to spare Nath or not. It was about whether the person can be redeemed or not.

2. Well you didn't find Nath hostile because you have chosen a different conversation tree with him. Like I pointed out earlier his responses vary and can create a different impression. My conversation with him narrowed down to him wanting zero compromise with the Warden and still not being beyond consideration of going back to the murdering plan.

3. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. What does it have to do with the argument in favour of or against executing Nathaniel? Are you saying that while your Warden did not wish to execute him - he still wanted to punish Nathaniel because your Warden considers being a Warden a punishment?

1. I didn't speak about the personal safety: I spoke about the Warden and Prince/Queen consort importance.I think the joining of Nathaniel is not some redemption problem: he did nothing yet just went home, and with this act, he violated a private property, and he wanted to kill the Warden, who killed his Father... or at least to steal back his heirloom's pieces. So: he's law-breaker, but he still does not need redemption. The point is: the Warden can see him as important, talented person, or not. Wants to practice mercy, or just wants to kill him, because of think, that he's dangerous.

2. My Wardens always found him more interesting than just to condemn him to death without question. He's the son of Rendon Howe. This would a reason to kill him, but even the Warden could think, that it is worth to investigate his causes.

3. One view point is: as I said: he's a law-breaker, but reasonable. So, perhaps he deserves punishment, but not DEATH punishment, AND ignore his law-breaking act or not: he seems talented and useful.

What about Anders? You can see him as a dangerous apostate, who killed a bunch of Templars... Nathaniel just a rogue.

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 22:05:57 GMT

1. I didn't speak about the personal safety: I spoke about the Warden and Prince/Queen consort importance.I think the joining of Nathaniel is not some redemption problem: he did nothing yet just went home, and with this act, he violated a private property, and he wanted to kill the Warden, who killed his Father... or at least to steal back his heirloom's pieces. So: he's law-breaker, but he still does not need redemption. The point is: the Warden can see him as important, talented person, or not. Wants to practice mercy, or just wants to kill him, because of think, that he's dangerous.

2. My Wardens always found him more interesting than just to condemn him to death without question. He's the son of Rendon Howe. This would a reason to kill him, but even the Warden could think, that it is worth to investigate his causes.

3. One view point is: as I said: he's a law-breaker, but reasonable. So, perhaps he deserves punishment, but not DEATH punishment, AND ignore his law-breaking act or not: he seems talented and useful.

What about Anders? You can see him as a dangerous apostate, who killed a bunch of Templars... Nathaniel just a rogue.

First of all - I've never condemned Nath to death. I said that for me sparing him was a harder choice than sparing Loghain or Zevran and in part this decision was harder due to my Warden's personal bias against Howes. - There IS a difference between my general perspective and specific Warden perspective.

1. I think this part of the conversation got sidetracked. The points are getting tied together here. I'll try separate.One view point is: as I said: he's a law-breaker, but reasonable.

Actually - that's the part of the problem why he's hard to spare. In the conversation with my Warden he is NOT being reasonable and he does not wish to compromise with my Warden. There is no knowing who he might blindly blame next for his situation and consider killing. He seems irrationally angry and lashing out at whoever he happens to blame.

So: he's law-breaker, but he still does not need redemption.

a) Theft Admitted himself - does not go through but still considers murder/shows no remorse and might go back to the idea/might attack somebody else c) Resisting arrest/inflicting injuries on several peopled) Refusing to cooperate with the lawful authorities which could be perceived as malevolent political intent such as undermining the Warden Order. Maybe he was a spy and stole all that junk as cover? He seems TOO skillful for a mere thief. He refused to talk to anyone except our Warden.e) Screw you all, I rather die than talk to you mentality.

Yes he does - if a crime is committed the person pays for it either by voluntary good deeds to society or jail/death. The law is in the rightful position to evaluate his crimes. When someone is not sorry for their unlawful actions it makes it a lot harder to be merciful. The Captain of the Guard btw thinks Nath does deserve death sentence.

So, perhaps he deserves punishment, but not DEATH punishment, AND ignore his law-breaking act or not: he seems talented and useful.

This is why my Warden does not execute him. However, he has to work through a horde of reservations prior to that decision - not the least of them being absolute mistrust for anything labelled Howe. For my first Warden this was the hardest choice in both Origins and Awakening.What about Anders? You can see him as a dangerous apostate, who killed a bunch of Templars

Darkspawn killed a bunch of Templars. Anders killed darkspawn that killed a bunch of Templars. I would think our Warden is smart enough to figure out what type of weapons inflicted injuries on the Templars' bodies to see that he told the truth. They weren't burned to crisp unlike darkspawn. Being in the middle of the darkspawn attack is hardly a good time to stage a trial over his crimes. You can't just lump someone's head off on the spot before even finding out what they are being accused of.

btw He looks more like a tower mage than an apostate. Your Warden when he/she runs into the scene doesn't even KNOW whether Anders is a prisoner or another Orlesian Warden. Anders confesses himself - which indicates a lack of the malevolent intent since he could have lied. It's not like those dead Templars were going to give him away.

Anders also makes no mystery over why he's arrested. He fesses up to the Warden immediately. His only crime is trying to run away from the tower. He doesn't even fight/injure any Templars every time they catch up to him. He just goes back without resistance (or they would have killed him). Also - he gets punished (and in my opinion those punishments are not proportionate to his crime in harshness) for his every attempt at running away. You can't punish someone for things he had already served the sentence for. The only thing he's guilty of is another attempt at trying to run away from the tower - but nobody asked the Warden to take jurisdictional action against Anders. The Warden uses conscription to get him.

Post by Catilina on Aug 16, 2017 22:41:44 GMT

1. I didn't speak about the personal safety: I spoke about the Warden and Prince/Queen consort importance.I think the joining of Nathaniel is not some redemption problem: he did nothing yet just went home, and with this act, he violated a private property, and he wanted to kill the Warden, who killed his Father... or at least to steal back his heirloom's pieces. So: he's law-breaker, but he still does not need redemption. The point is: the Warden can see him as important, talented person, or not. Wants to practice mercy, or just wants to kill him, because of think, that he's dangerous.

2. My Wardens always found him more interesting than just to condemn him to death without question. He's the son of Rendon Howe. This would a reason to kill him, but even the Warden could think, that it is worth to investigate his causes.

3. One view point is: as I said: he's a law-breaker, but reasonable. So, perhaps he deserves punishment, but not DEATH punishment, AND ignore his law-breaking act or not: he seems talented and useful.

What about Anders? You can see him as a dangerous apostate, who killed a bunch of Templars... Nathaniel just a rogue.

First of all - I've never condemned Nath to death. I said that for me sparing him was a harder choice than sparing Loghain or Zevran and in part this decision was harder due to my Warden's personal bias against Howes. - There IS a difference between my general perspective and specific Warden perspective.

1. I think this part of the conversation got sidetracked. The points are getting tied together here. I'll try separate.One view point is: as I said: he's a law-breaker, but reasonable.

Actually - that's the part of the problem why he's hard to spare. In the conversation with my Warden he is NOT being reasonable and he does not wish to compromise with my Warden. There is no knowing who he might blindly blame next for his situation and consider killing. He seems irrationally angry and lashing out at whoever he happens to blame.

So: he's law-breaker, but he still does not need redemption.

a) Theft Admitted himself - does not go through but still considers murder/shows no remorse and might go back to the idea/might attack somebody else c) Resisting arrest/inflicting injuries on several peopled) Refusing to cooperate with the lawful authorities which could be perceived as malevolent political intent such as undermining the Warden Order. Maybe he was a spy and stole all that junk as cover? He seems TOO skillful for a mere thief. He refused to talk to anyone except our Warden.e) Screw you all, I rather die than talk to you mentality.

Yes he does - if a crime is committed the person pays for it either by voluntary good deeds to society or jail/death. The law is in the rightful position to evaluate his crimes. When someone is not sorry for their unlawful actions it makes it a lot harder to be merciful. The Captain of the Guard btw thinks Nath does deserve death sentence.

So, perhaps he deserves punishment, but not DEATH punishment, AND ignore his law-breaking act or not: he seems talented and useful.

This is why my Warden does not execute him. However, he has to work through a horde of reservations prior to that decision - not the least of them being absolute mistrust for anything labelled Howe. For my first Warden this was the hardest choice in both Origins and Awakening.What about Anders? You can see him as a dangerous apostate, who killed a bunch of Templars

Darkspawn killed a bunch of Templars. Anders killed darkspawn that killed a bunch of Templars. I would think our Warden is smart enough to figure out what type of weapons inflicted injuries on the Templars' bodies to see that he told the truth. They weren't burned to crisp unlike darkspawn. Being in the middle of the darkspawn attack is hardly a good time to stage a trial over his crimes. You can't just lump someone's head off on the spot before even finding out what they are being accused of.

btw He looks more like a tower mage than an apostate. Your Warden when he/she runs into the scene doesn't even KNOW whether Anders is a prisoner or anther Orlesian Warden. Anders confesses himself - which indicates a lack of the malevolent intent since he could have lied. It's not like those dead Templars were going to give him away.

Anders also makes no mystery over why he's arrested. He fesses up to the Warden immediately. His only crime is trying to run away from the tower. He doesn't even fight/injure any Templars every time they catch up to him. He just goes back without resistance (or they would have killed him). Also - he gets punished (and in my opinion those punishments are not proportionate to his crime in harshness) for his every attempt at running away. You can't punish someone for things he had already served the sentence for. The only thing he's guilty of is another attempt at trying to run away from the tower - but nobody asked the Warden to take jurisdictional action against Anders. The Warden uses conscription to get him.

Don't get me wrong, this is only theoretical, I know, you didn't kill Nathaniel, only I want to see another viewpoint. (I very rarely play as lawful. Somehow doesn't like that. Neutral or chaotic is my type.)

So, let see, what we have:Yes, as a lawful Warden, you have point, the Warden clearly sees him as a criminal.As a chaotic/neutral Warden not so judgmental:Theft: his own stuffResisting? Who wants to be prisonerRefusing to cooperate? That seems not a big sin.Wants to speak only with the Warden? This is what makes him more interesting.So: as a neutral/chaotic, you can see a skilled, but stubborn man, who doesn't respect everything, what/who doesn't earn his respect enough – just as yourself.

But if the Warden's lawful, Anders is a lawbreaker too. And among the Dark Spawn, there are Mages too. And the Templar corpses could be burned. And an experienced mage could have so many spells, not only fire balls. How Warden knows, that Anders' not a blood mage, for example. In this case, the Templars could kill each other.

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 23:10:01 GMT

Like I said earlier - I'm aware of how many people like Nath and my opinion fits into 'unpopular thread.' Also, I've RPed other Wardens, so it's not like I haven't considered excuses for him as well.

But if the Warden's lawful, Anders is a lawbreaker too. And among the Dark Spawn, there are Mages too. And the Templar corpses could be burned. And an experienced mage could have so many spells, not only fire balls. How Warden knows, that Anders' not a blood mage, for example. In this case, the Templars could kill each other.

Then how their corpses are positioned on the ground would be different. Someone who fights all the time can tell by patterns who fought whom. Even an apostate will not ally himself with darkspawn. Once Warden groups with Anders he can see which skills he's using to fight darkspawn. Anders is a Spirit Healer.

A lawful good character will not execute someone on the spot without evidence. 'I kinda think you look like a blood mage so chop' does not equal evidence or good justice. When the Warden comes in he only sees Anders killing darkspawn. The Warden does not even know that Anders is a prisoner - he considers him to be possibly an Orlesian Warden - Anders confesses himself, which is not an action of a malevolent party. It is not Warden's place to play executioner in those circumstances. If he had caught Anders killing a Templar not a darkspawn, then that would be a different matter.

Post by Catilina on Aug 16, 2017 23:28:09 GMT

Like I said earlier - I'm aware of how many people like Nath and my opinion fits into 'unpopular thread.' Also, I've RPed other Wardens, so it's not like I haven't considered excuses for him as well.

But if the Warden's lawful, Anders is a lawbreaker too. And among the Dark Spawn, there are Mages too. And the Templar corpses could be burned. And an experienced mage could have so many spells, not only fire balls. How Warden knows, that Anders' not a blood mage, for example. In this case, the Templars could kill each other.

Then how their corpses are positioned on the ground would be different. Someone who fights all the time can tell by patterns who fought whom. Even an apostate will not ally himself with darkspawn. Once Warden groups with Anders he can see which skills he's using to fight darkspawn. Anders is a Spirit Healer.

A lawful good character will not execute someone on the spot without evidence. 'I kinda think you look like a blood mage so chop' does not equal evidence or good justice. When the Warden comes in he only sees Anders killing darkspawn. The Warden does not even know that Anders is a prisoner - he considers him to be possibly an Orlesian Warden - Anders confesses himself, which is not an action of a malevolent party. It is not Warden's place to play executioner in those circumstances. If he had caught Anders killing a Templar not a darkspawn, then that would be a different matter.

Perhaps, your opinion about Nate is unpopular, not totally illogical. The Warden doesn't know Nathaniel, just as Anders. The Warden's verdict only depend on his/her viewpoint.Back to Anders:Warden doesn't know, that Anders' a spirit healer, when s/he met with him. He just sees an apostate, in the Vigil's Keep (Anders told that immediately).S/he can't be sure, that the Templars or the Darkspawns were there first.S/He didn't know, that Anders' a good man. Why? Because he's charming? Many people's charming AND evil.I didn't say, that the lawful Warden should execute him, rather give him to the Templars.I didn't say, that lawful GOOD, I just said: lawful. (In DA the lawful and good seems an oxymoron to me: to be real good, in DA the character must be lawbreaker)

Post by adonniel on Aug 16, 2017 23:47:43 GMT

Like I said earlier - I'm aware of how many people like Nath and my opinion fits into 'unpopular thread.' Also, I've RPed other Wardens, so it's not like I haven't considered excuses for him as well.

But if the Warden's lawful, Anders is a lawbreaker too. And among the Dark Spawn, there are Mages too. And the Templar corpses could be burned. And an experienced mage could have so many spells, not only fire balls. How Warden knows, that Anders' not a blood mage, for example. In this case, the Templars could kill each other.

Then how their corpses are positioned on the ground would be different. Someone who fights all the time can tell by patterns who fought whom. Even an apostate will not ally himself with darkspawn. Once Warden groups with Anders he can see which skills he's using to fight darkspawn. Anders is a Spirit Healer.

A lawful good character will not execute someone on the spot without evidence. 'I kinda think you look like a blood mage so chop' does not equal evidence or good justice. When the Warden comes in he only sees Anders killing darkspawn. The Warden does not even know that Anders is a prisoner - he considers him to be possibly an Orlesian Warden - Anders confesses himself, which is not an action of a malevolent party. It is not Warden's place to play executioner in those circumstances. If he had caught Anders killing a Templar not a darkspawn, then that would be a different matter.

Perhaps, your opinion about Nate is unpopular, not totally illogical. The Warden doesn't know Nathaniel, just as Anders. The Warden's verdict only depend on his/her viewpoint.Back to Anders:Warden doesn't know, that Anders' a spirit healer, when s/he met with him. He just sees an apostate, in the Vigil's Keep. S/he can't be sure, that the Templars or the Darkspawns were there first.S/He didn't know, that Anders' a good man. Why? Because he's charming? Many people's charming AND evil.I didn't say, that the lawful Warden should execute him, rather give him to the Templars.I didn't say, that lawful GOOD, I just said: lawful. (In DA the lawful and good seems an oxymoron to me: to be real good, in DA the character must be lawbreaker)

First of all - My Warden does not agree to letting Anders go free. Both Warden and Anders make a temporary alliance against darkspawn. After that the Warden reserved the right of trial or handing Anders over to the proper authorities who have the right to do it.

Not totally illogical to consider a punishment for a proven criminal? Seems very logical. With Nathaniel your Warden is asked to play the judge and he is presented with direct evidence of the crime, which the accused does not deny. With Anders all you have is a speculation at that specific moment. The situations are radically different.

Also - lets separate his decision to let Anders live at the point when they meet vs at the point where The Queen/King comes into the picture with the Templars.

At a point where Warden and Anders meet you only have 3 options:

a) kill Anders - no that's unjust allow him to run away unchecked - are you kding? c) ask him to stay near you (and thus in part keep the former prisoner in check)

Post by Catilina on Aug 17, 2017 0:04:34 GMT

Perhaps, your opinion about Nate is unpopular, not totally illogical. The Warden doesn't know Nathaniel, just as Anders. The Warden's verdict only depend on his/her viewpoint.Back to Anders:Warden doesn't know, that Anders' a spirit healer, when s/he met with him. He just sees an apostate, in the Vigil's Keep. S/he can't be sure, that the Templars or the Darkspawns were there first.S/He didn't know, that Anders' a good man. Why? Because he's charming? Many people's charming AND evil.I didn't say, that the lawful Warden should execute him, rather give him to the Templars.I didn't say, that lawful GOOD, I just said: lawful. (In DA the lawful and good seems an oxymoron to me: to be real good, in DA the character must be lawbreaker)

First of all - My Warden does not agree to letting Anders go free. Both Warden and Anders make a temporary alliance against darkspawn. After that the Warden reserved the right of trial or handing Anders over to the proper authorities who have the right to do it.

Not totally illogical to consider a punishment for a proven criminal? Seems very logical. With Nathaniel your Warden is asked to play the judge and he is presented with direct evidence of the crime, which the accused does not deny. With Anders all you have is a speculation at that specific moment. The situations are radically different.

Also - lets separate his decision to let Anders live at the point when they meet vs at the point where The Queen/King comes into the picture with the Templars.

At a point where Warden and Anders meet you only have 3 options:

a) kill Anders - no that's unjust allow him to run away unchecked - are you kding? c) ask him to stay near you (and thus in part keep the former prisoner in check)

Not really. Anders' is a "wanted Apostate", so: he's a proven criminal, what he doesn't deny. The Templar Women told, that he's a murderer. The Wardens have right to conscript him, of course. Just as Nathaniel. And what I said: Nathaniel doesn't look more dangerous, than Anders. This was the start point to me. And he doesn't need more redemption, than Anders. (Anders also not an invited guest in the Vigil's Keep.)

Yes, to kill Anders at the moment is unjust. – Just as Nathaniel.Allow him to run away as a mage, who helped to Jowan is a very logical decision. But yes, as a more lawful/less mage character, better to stay near the Warden, not only because he's a former prisoner, but even because he seems useful. – Just as Nathaniel.

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 0:15:59 GMT

First of all - My Warden does not agree to letting Anders go free. Both Warden and Anders make a temporary alliance against darkspawn. After that the Warden reserved the right of trial or handing Anders over to the proper authorities who have the right to do it.

Not totally illogical to consider a punishment for a proven criminal? Seems very logical. With Nathaniel your Warden is asked to play the judge and he is presented with direct evidence of the crime, which the accused does not deny. With Anders all you have is a speculation at that specific moment. The situations are radically different.

Not really. Anders' is a "wanted Apostate", so: he's a proven criminal, what he doesn't deny. The Templar Women told, that he's a murderer. The Wardens have right to conscript him, of course. Just as Nathaniel. And what I said: Nathaniel doesn't look more dangerous, than Anders. This was the start point to me. And he doesn't need more redemption, than Anders. (Anders also not an invited guest in the Vigil's Keep.)

- This is not Warden's jurisdiction to punish a wanted apostate. Anders was in the custody of the Templars when they were attacked and this is the Circle or Templar business to decide his punishment. Anders was in the process of being brought to trial - there was no sentence against him yet. The Warden has no evidence that Anders killed the Templars. You can only speculate whether he did or didn't do. Whereas Nathaniel is 100% is court and trial for the Warden. This is Warden jurisdiction to pass a sentence on him.

Yes, to kill Anders at the moment is unjust. – Just as Nathaniel.

No. Anders is pre-trial. Nathaniel is in the middle of the trial.

Warden, not only because he's a former prisoner, but even because he seems useful. – Just as Nathaniel.

He's not useful. Anders valunteers to fighter darkspawn with the Warden. Nathaniel says 'screw you I hate you and will never help you.'

My Warden handed Jowan back to the Circle once he helped Conor. Once again - not my Warden's right to pass life/death sentence on Jowan.

Post by Catilina on Aug 17, 2017 0:35:32 GMT

Not really. Anders' is a "wanted Apostate", so: he's a proven criminal, what he doesn't deny. The Templar Woman told, that he's a murderer. The Wardens have right to conscript him, of course. Just as Nathaniel. And what I said: Nathaniel doesn't look more dangerous, than Anders. This was the start point to me. And he doesn't need more redemption, than Anders. (Anders also not an invited guest in the Vigil's Keep.)

- This is not Warden's jurisdiction to punish a wanted apostate. Anders was in the custody of the Templars when they were attacked and this is the Circle or Templar business to decide his punishment. Anders was in the process of being brought to trial - there was no sentence against him yet. The Warden has no evidence that Anders killed the Templars. You can only speculate whether he did or didn't do. Whereas Nathaniel is 100% is court and trial for the Warden. This is Warden jurisdiction to pass a sentence on him.

At a point where Warden and Anders meet you only have 3 options:Yes, to kill Anders at the moment is unjust. – Just as Nathaniel.

No. Anders is pre-trial. Nathaniel is in the middle of the trial.

But Nathaniel just came into the fortress and tried to steal his own stuff. This is not a big sin. So executing him seems unjust. – Just as Anders. To punish him, isn't unjust – just as Anders.The Warden in the Keep HAS jurisdiction to punish an intruder. Anders is a wanted Apostate intruder. The fact, that Anders' is a wanted Apostate intruder (criminal) is proved.

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 0:53:26 GMT

But Nathaniel just came into the fortress and tried to steal his own stuff. This is not a big sin. So executing him seems unjust. – Just as Anders. To punish him, isn't unjust – just as Anders.

Execution being unjust for Anders and for Nath are for completely different reasons.

The Warden in the Keep HAS jurisdiction to punish an intruder. Anders is a wanted Apostate intruder.

Except he's not an intruder. He was in the custody of the Templars who brought him there against his will. Intruder is someone who infiltrates a place with a malevolent intent. Actually, exactly what Nathaiel does is called being an intruder - but you just argued that lumping someone's head off for that is unjust.

The Templar Women told, that he's a murderer.

1) This woman is not present at that moment when the Warden encounters Anders. She shows up with the King/Queen. So, he can't rely on her judgement at that point in deciding what to do with Anders.2) She accuses him of murdering those Templars. That's a 100% biased and groundless accusation since she wasn't even there when the attack occurred. If our Warden who came 2 mins post fight has no evidence against Anders - than someone who wasn't there is just tossing groundless accusations based on blind hate.

LoL Also don't get me started on that batty woman. Does anyone else love it how she claims.

"You Majesty be careful! This is a dangerous criminal!"

Then she huffs and walks away, leaving the King without a bodyguard as he stands half a step away from that 'horribly dangerous criminal,' just because the King disagrees with her?

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 1:20:02 GMT

Not really. Anders' is a "wanted Apostate", so: he's a proven criminal, what he doesn't deny.

Whoops... Shoot. I forgot to explain. By 'guilt speculation,' I meant whether Anders killed those Templars or not, not about him being an apostate. But, apostate thing is Templar jurisdiction. The Warden could have acted only if he came in and saw Anders killing a Templar.

btw (Unless I don't remember correctly) When dealing with Nathaniel you aren't given an option to leave him in jail - which seems like the most reasonable punishment for his crime. It's the choice between two extremes - let him go or kill him. The Warden creates a 3rd option that initially he isn't presented with, that's the closest to the middle ground, by recruiting.

___

If we take a look at the trial and three options though, Nath does his best to bury himself in.

Option 1: Let him go.

Nathaniel: I hate you! I'm not sorry for my actions! If you let me go I will try to rob you again and possibly go back to the idea of killing you!

Option 2: Recruit him.

Nathaniel: Have I mentioned that I hate you and the Wardens even more? Well I hate you and the Wardens! I will NEVER help you. I rather die than be a Warden!

Option 3: Execute him.

Well... I can't do 1 because I can't release non repenting criminal into the world and he is dead set against 2.

Post by Catilina on Aug 17, 2017 11:03:37 GMT

Not really. Anders' is a "wanted Apostate", so: he's a proven criminal, what he doesn't deny.

Whoops... Shoot. I forgot to explain. By 'guilt speculation,' I meant whether Anders killed those Templars or not, not about him being an apostate. But, apostate thing is Templar jurisdiction. The Warden could have acted only if he came in and saw Anders killing a Templar.

btw (Unless I don't remember correctly) When dealing with Nathaniel you aren't given an option to leave him in jail - which seems like the most reasonable punishment for his crime. It's the choice between two extremes - let him go or kill him. The Warden creates a 3rd option that initially he isn't presented with, that's the closest to the middle ground, by recruiting.

___

If we take a look at the trial and three options though, Nath does his best to bury himself in.Option 1: Let him go.Nathaniel: I hate you! I'm not sorry for my actions! If you let me go I will try to rob you again and possibly go back to the idea of killing you!Option 2: Recruit him.Nathaniel: Have I mentioned that I hate you and the Wardens even more? Well I hate you and the Wardens! I will NEVER help you. I rather die than be a Warden!Option 3: Execute him.Well... I can't do 1 because I can't release non-repenting criminal into the world and he is dead set against 2.

You're right about Anders, he's not an intruder (I found my old video), but still, can say, that the Warden can see him dangerous, and murderer, because believe to the Templar (not everyone thinks, that a Templar's ridiculous). In Thedas the mages are feared, the Templars are honored. I never told that why the Warden doesn't kill him at the first meeting, rather later, when he meets with that Templar.

I still didn't feel serious hostility related Nathaniel, rather stubborn sincerity and foolish challenging behavior. He's just my Cousland – they could be brothers. (But true, it's just my impression.)And Nathaniel didn't kill the guards, only "four guards needed to arrest him".He told, that he'll back, but not for killing you. Here he doesn't speak about anymore. He needs the pieces of his heirloom.And the joining ritual's very dangerous, maybe a death sentence.

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 13:19:15 GMT

Er... I never accused Nath of murdering guards.

And the joining ritual's very dangerous, maybe a death sentence.

Everyone else no matter how bad is willing to undergo it. Nath doesn't wish to. That's a huge and fundamental difference that makes it hard to choose recruiting him. Also, I don't believe this option even pops up until you call back the Captain. Your Warden is essentially forced into options life/death. Only when you say 'I know what to do' is when the recruiting thing shows up. So, in deciding you don't even know that the game will allow you to do that unless you've read wiki. Mind you that was my 1st play through. Nath could have been not recruitable hero but more like Jowan or even like Sophia/demons. Every time you negotiate with a guilty npc, you have to weight out the consequences of letting them go in DA.

Everyone is like well he's recruitable hero it's stupid to waste him and then he becomes this great guy. How would you know if it's your first time playing? As far as I know if I let him go in the epilogue he'll run off and establish an assassin guild that would harass the Keep and Amaranthene to get revenge on the Warden. And personal shaded grudge that makes you assume the worst of him - he's a Howe! Bad genes right there to murder more families.

Warden can see him dangerous, and murderer

Didn't say the Warden doesn't see him as dangerous, just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not murderer as no proof - but dangerous for sure. Don't make my Warden sound like he jumped for joy every time and said hurray more heroes for my team. Him allowing any of those shady characters on the team came after I went through every dialogue option and considered it carefully. And I have considered rejecting some. Recruiting Sten, Shale, Zevran, Loghain (who else did I miss) it all comes at a risk. With Anders its another risk where you are mostly pushed into putting your trust into that person as other options are even less desirable for the Warden.

As for the separate situation whether Anders had killed those Templars or not.

From a court and trial point - no fair judge will accept as conclusive evidence a story. "Well I ran into this room. There were darkspawn corpses with Templar weapon marks on them and Templar corpses with darkspawn weapon inflicted wounds on them. And this guy was in the middle of killing darkspawn. So... I figure this guy was guilty of killing all those Templars..." No witness had seen who killed who in that situation.

From my PERSONAL point of view whether to take Anders' word for it or not, my Warden is more inclined to believe Anders.

S/He didn't know, that Anders' a good man. Why? Because he's charming? Many people's charming AND evil.

Charming is not how my Warden would have described his attitude at that point. It was more like desperate bitterness covered by sarcasm. Anders is used to being assumed automatically guilty no matter whether its true or not. Sarcasm is used to laugh at his jailers bias because there is nothing more he can do about it. They will decide his punishment on the 'guilty without the need to prove innocence' basis no matter what. At least the Templars always immediately assume the worst of him with no evidence.

So in this situation Anders is saying, You'll automatically presume I'm evil no matter what I say.

And the Warden points out that he is an outside party in that conflict and prefers to withhold judgement until he gets more information.

More edit: This whole situation with Nath is just bogus to me precisely because he hates the Wardens so much and says he doesn't want to help them. While it is in the Warden's power to force the goblet down his throat that doesn't mean Nath has to stay after the content was delivered and he didn't die in horrible convulsions. It would have made more sense for him to leave and re-appear later in the game even if he's recruited immediately. You could reason pragmatically that if you get recruited for a club, even involuntarily, that it might be best to stick around to learn their rules, but Nath is not guided by pragmatism at that point, he's guided by emotions and hate. Seems like he immediately stays for no other pleasure than to glare evil holes in our Warden.

Post by Catilina on Aug 17, 2017 19:19:33 GMT

Everyone else no matter how bad is willing to undergo it. Nath doesn't wish to. That's a huge and fundamental difference that makes it hard to choose recruiting him. Also, I don't believe this option even pops up until you call back the Captain. Your Warden is essentially forced into options life/death. Only when you say 'I know what to do' is when the recruiting thing shows up. So, in deciding you don't even know that the game will allow you to do that unless you've read wiki. Mind you that was my 1st play through. Nath could have been not recruitable hero but more like Jowan or even like Sophia/demons. Every time you negotiate with a guilty npc, you have to weight out the consequences of letting them go in DA.

Everyone is like well he's recruitable hero it's stupid to waste him and then he becomes this great guy. How would you know if it's your first time playing? As far as I know if I let him go in the epilogue he'll run off and establish an assassin guild that would harass the Keep and Amaranthene to get revenge on the Warden. And personal shaded grudge that makes you assume the worst of him - he's a Howe! Bad genes right there to murder more families.

Warden can see him dangerous, and murderer

Didn't say the Warden doesn't see him as dangerous, just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not murderer as no proof - but dangerous for sure. Don't make my Warden sound like he jumped for joy every time and said hurray more heroes for my team. Him allowing any of those shady characters on the team came after I went through every dialogue option and considered it carefully. And I have considered rejecting some. Recruiting Sten, Shale, Zevran, Loghain (who else did I miss) it all comes at a risk. With Anders its another risk where you are mostly pushed into putting your trust into that person as other options are even less desirable for the Warden.

As for the separate situation whether Anders had killed those Templars or not.

From a court and trial point - no fair judge will accept as conclusive evidence a story. "Well I ran into this room. There were darkspawn corpses with Templar weapon marks on them and Templar corpses with darkspawn weapon inflicted wounds on them. And this guy was in the middle of killing darkspawn. So... I figure this guy was guilty of killing all those Templars..." No witness had seen who killed who in that situation.

From my PERSONAL point of view whether to take Anders' word for it or not, my Warden is more inclined to believe Anders.

S/He didn't know, that Anders' a good man. Why? Because he's charming? Many people's charming AND evil.

Charming is not how my Warden would have described his attitude at that point. It was more like desperate bitterness covered by sarcasm. Anders is used to being assumed automatically guilty no matter whether its true or not. Sarcasm is used to laugh at his jailers bias because there is nothing more he can do about it. They will decide his punishment on the 'guilty without the need to prove innocence' basis no matter what. At least the Templars always immediately assume the worst of him with no evidence.

So in this situation Anders is saying, You'll automatically presume I'm evil no matter what I say.

And the Warden points out that he is an outside party in that conflict and prefers to withhold judgement until he gets more information.

More edit: This whole situation with Nath is just bogus to me precisely because he hates the Wardens so much and says he doesn't want to help them. While it is in the Warden's power to force the goblet down his throat that doesn't mean Nath has to stay after the content was delivered and he didn't die in horrible convulsions. It would have made more sense for him to leave and re-appear later in the game even if he's recruited immediately. You could reason pragmatically that if you get recruited for a club, even involuntarily, that it might be best to stick around to learn their rules, but Nath is not guided by pragmatism at that point, he's guided by emotions and hate. Seems like he immediately stays for no other pleasure than to glare evil holes in our Warden.

Nathaniel's ending depends on various actions you take during the game.

Note: In Awakening, Epilogue slides are also affected by whether or not the relevant companion quests were completed and how high companions approval has been raised.

He may retire as a Grey Warden (for thinking it doesn't suit him), but his nephew will eventually become Commander of the Grey, by which the Howe name would once again be known.

He may save Fergus Cousland from great danger and bring fame to the name of Howe once again. In gratitude, Teyrn Cousland grants some lands back to the Howes, which Nathaniel passes to Delilah's son. When a new castle is built there, a statue of Nathaniel is erected in its courtyard.

If Nathaniel is selected to defend Vigil's Keep, he will die unless the Keep has been fully upgraded.

So: Nathaniel not that bad.Think about it: He comes home, his father's dead, he's an outcast, just as his entire family. He lost everything, and know nothing about the reasons. He believed in his Father, even Bryce Cousland didn't think before, that Howe will kill him and his entire family. Yes, Nathaniel's angry, and stubborn. Not a criminal. And the Warden knows his reason.

About Anders: As I said, you're right, and I'm glad, that you don't see him as a funny nice guy... (Anders was an example, but perhaps Zevran would be better.)

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 21:37:31 GMT

Nathaniel's ending depends on various actions you take during the game.

Note: In Awakening, Epilogue slides are also affected by whether or not the relevant companion quests were completed and how high companions approval has been raised.

He may retire as a Grey Warden (for thinking it doesn't suit him), but his nephew will eventually become Commander of the Grey, by which the Howe name would once again be known.

He may save Fergus Cousland from great danger and bring fame to the name of Howe once again. In gratitude, Teyrn Cousland grants some lands back to the Howes, which Nathaniel passes to Delilah's son. When a new castle is built there, a statue of Nathaniel is erected in its courtyard.

If Nathaniel is selected to defend Vigil's Keep, he will die unless the Keep has been fully upgraded.

So: Nathaniel not that bad.Think about it: He comes home, his father's dead, he's an outcast, just as his entire family. He lost everything, and know nothing about the reasons. He believed in his Father, even Bryce Cousland didn't think before, that Howe will kill him and his entire family. Yes, Nathaniel's angry, and stubborn. Not a criminal. And the Warden knows his reason.

About Anders: As I said, you're right, and I'm glad, that you don't see him as a funny nice guy... (Anders was an example, but perhaps Zevran would be better.)

We were discussing how Nath behaves during a single point in time when he's imprisoned and how based on that specific behavior my Warden considered execution. This reaction is after he had time to think about it. I never said I did not grow to respect Nath as the story progresses. However, I still do not feel that fangirling or lets bond and be buddy buddy thing.

Also, leaving him in the upgraded Keep gives you an ending where he survives and gets carried on his comrade's shoulders while being hailed a hero if you leave him at the Keep. BTW this ending was obtained on my 1st Warden who considered the execution. Da joke is on Nath who realized that his and my Warden's values were in fact the same after bitching at him and then very quickly getting to 100.

know nothing about the reasons

Yes. It sure doesn't hurt to learn the reasons before sharpening the knives.

Oh Anders is funny. That's why sarcasm are excellent means of diversion and he's by far not the first to employ it in DA. You just have to keep in mind the darker undertones to his humor.

Post by Catilina on Aug 17, 2017 21:58:07 GMT

Nathaniel's ending depends on various actions you take during the game.

Note: In Awakening, Epilogue slides are also affected by whether or not the relevant companion quests were completed and how high companions approval has been raised.

He may retire as a Grey Warden (for thinking it doesn't suit him), but his nephew will eventually become Commander of the Grey, by which the Howe name would once again be known.

He may save Fergus Cousland from great danger and bring fame to the name of Howe once again. In gratitude, Teyrn Cousland grants some lands back to the Howes, which Nathaniel passes to Delilah's son. When a new castle is built there, a statue of Nathaniel is erected in its courtyard.

If Nathaniel is selected to defend Vigil's Keep, he will die unless the Keep has been fully upgraded.

So: Nathaniel not that bad.Think about it: He comes home, his father's dead, he's an outcast, just as his entire family. He lost everything, and know nothing about the reasons. He believed in his Father, even Bryce Cousland didn't think before, that Howe will kill him and his entire family. Yes, Nathaniel's angry, and stubborn. Not a criminal. And the Warden knows his reason.

About Anders: As I said, you're right, and I'm glad, that you don't see him as a funny nice guy... (Anders was an example, but perhaps Zevran would be better.)

We were discussing how Nath behaves during a single point in time when he's imprisoned and how based on that specific behavior my Warden considered execution. This reaction is after he had time to think about it. I never said I did not grow to respect Nath as the story progresses. However, I still do not feel that fangirling or lets bond and be buddy buddy thing.

Also, leaving him in the upgraded Keep gives you an ending where he survives and gets carried on his comrade's shoulders while being hailed a hero if you leave him at the Keep. BTW this ending was obtained on my 1st Warden who considered the execution. Da joke is on Nath who realized that his and my Warden's values were in fact the same after bitching at him and then very quickly getting to 100.

know nothing about the reasons

Yes. It sure doesn't hurt to learn the reasons before sharpening the knives.

Oh Anders is funny. That's why sarcasm are excellent means of diversion and he's by far not the first to employ it in DA. You just have to keep in mind the darker undertones to his humor.

He told, that he came here to rip off the Warden's head and gather the pieces of his heirloom, but already he wants these parts of his heirloom, and not the Warden's head. Seems we look at him with different eyes. I still can understand his reasons. Just as he can understand the Warden's reason.

Yes, Anders's can be funny, he has humor, and charm too, but as you said this is the cover. He's not fun, he's rather very angry and sad. Bad wording again? Then I say: he's not that light-hearted guy, as many people see him.

Post by adonniel on Aug 17, 2017 23:29:03 GMT

We were discussing how Nath behaves during a single point in time when he's imprisoned and how based on that specific behavior my Warden considered execution. This reaction is after he had time to think about it. I never said I did not grow to respect Nath as the story progresses. However, I still do not feel that fangirling or lets bond and be buddy buddy thing.

Also, leaving him in the upgraded Keep gives you an ending where he survives and gets carried on his comrade's shoulders while being hailed a hero if you leave him at the Keep. BTW this ending was obtained on my 1st Warden who considered the execution. Da joke is on Nath who realized that his and my Warden's values were in fact the same after bitching at him and then very quickly getting to 100.

know nothing about the reasons

Yes. It sure doesn't hurt to learn the reasons before sharpening the knives.

Oh Anders is funny. That's why sarcasm are excellent means of diversion and he's by far not the first to employ it in DA. You just have to keep in mind the darker undertones to his humor.

He told, that he came here to rip off the Warden's head and gather the pieces of his heirloom, but already he wants these parts of his heirloom, and not the Warden's head. Seems we look at him with different eyes. I still can understand his reasons. Just as he can understand the Warden's reason.

I suppose he should also be given an excuse due to his tragic background. It's obvious Nath's grandmother is the scariest villain in DA.

Speaking of which, I DEMAND a punishment option for R. Howe to tie him up and send to his mom for inspection instead of stabbing him. See if he can get smart mouthed about that.

Post by vertigomez on Jan 13, 2018 22:34:51 GMT

Been thinking about the Awakening crew lately so I figured it was time to revive this thread.

I found this really good fic centered on Velanna. (There's some Velanna/Nate in there, but mostly it's Velanna being Velanna, grappling with shemlen nonsense and taking acid trip journeys with Avvar gods.) Got me all nostalgic for Awakening.